Talk:Genetic fallacy

This page is terrible, the argument

(1) my parents told me a god exists

(2) my parents would never lie to me

(3) Therefore, this God exists

does not use the genetic fallacy (the problem with it is that it is not the case that if you are not lying about p, then p as a lie is an intentional falsehood, you can still tell a falsehood that isn't a lie (e.g Aristotle wasn't lying when get gave his theory of cannonballs even though the theory is false). The above argument is quite okayish as arguments go (its structure is very clear which puts it above most arguments).

An argument uses the genetic fallacy iff it uses bad reasons for the source of a proposition as evidence for the negation that proposition (not a perfect definition but it will suffice) E.g, I was hit on the head and exclaimed by chance '3 + 4 = 7', so '3 + 4 = 7' is false. Obviously just because a belief isn't justified that doesn't mean that it's a false belief.^{— Unsigned, by: 163.1.208.255 / talk / contribs 15:05, 8 February 2015‎ (UTC)}

I think that there are several problems with this article:

• The introduction mentions evidence which is rejected based on its source, while the Forms section described the fallacy as rejecting something someone said based on who said it. I think P1 in all three forms should be "X provides evidence for claim Y", instead of "X said Y". Or maybe the introduction should be changed to reflect the current meaning as described by the Forms section? Whichever is more correct. Or maybe "X said Y" is logic-code-speak for "X provides evidence for Y"? (I honestly don't know, but in that case maybe it should be clarified for people like me)
• The fallacy as described in the introduction most closely resembles what is in the Forms section called the "less common" form, which is confusing and probably wrong in some way.
• The forms described in the Forms section are about rejecting a claim because the source is "bad". The opposite, blindly accepting a claim because the source is "good" should also be mentioned since they are both treated equally in the introduction. Or, if the genetic fallacy doesn't encompass those cases they should be removed from the introduction.
• It is not clarified what the term "bad source" describes. As it stands, it sounds to me like "a source that I believe to be unreliable" while it should also encompass things like "a source I don't like".
• The so-called "most common" form looks just plain wrong to me: "Y is not necessarily true" is the same as "Y might or might not be true" is the same as "We don't actually know if Y is true or not" which should lead to "let's find out" and finally to either "Yep, Y is true" or "Nope, Y is false". In either case, the quality of the source would only create the initial impulse to question the claim and find out the truth, but not what one finally believes to be true. In general, questioning a claim (but not rejecting/accepting it) for whatever reason is not a logical fallacy. The second, "less common" form makes more sense in that regard.

88.69.250.198 (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

If Socrates is immortal...

...he's gonna get pretty cold at heat death. --Scherben (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Global warming

Article says: "This exception mostly only can apply to Holocaust deniers and Stalin apologists. (...) Being pro-life, an anti-vaxxer, member of PETA or global warming denialist, or even someone on the alt-right who isn't a Holocaust denier, is not grounds for dismissing that person out of hand for having an extremely distorted view on reality."

Am I the only one that puts global warming denialists on the same level as as Holocaust deniers and Stalin apologists? GeeJayK (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

On a moral level I would too. I mean, they are essentially allowing the closest thing we may get to a real apocalypse to happen.-Flandres (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)